Supposedly one was toggled a second or two after the other, so it looks intentional.

I'm reluctant to call it deliberate without more information, but it certainly looks deliberate. There's a tiny chance the pilots thought the engines were failing before they hit the cut offs, and hit it as part of a rebooting procedure? I don't know, not a pilot, but even that seems really implausable.

It's starting to look intentional and now the obvious questions are why. The obvious culprit group (Pakistan and pro-Pakistan terrorist groups) hasn't claimed responsibility, so it's unlikely that.

At least it wasn't Boeing I guess, so many fingers pointed at them after the accident.

I know the media has a boner for AI, but is there any justification for the use of the word "some" here when it appears to be a decent survey and there's no evidence that the senior devs involved are atypical? I wouldn't expect a drug report where most of the people not in the control group saw their symptoms as improving reported as "{Drugname} Cures Some {Condition} sufferers"

Seems a strange choice of headline.

If it was in the 1990s, Microsoft Office skills were Office skills in general.

Before the mid-2000s, virtually all office suites had CUA UIs - a standardized placement of menus, keyboard short cuts, dialogs, etc, that made it easy to pick up a new application as long as you were familiar with its features and the CUA itself. A Wordperfect user had little difficulty transitioning to Word and vice versa. So teaching people how to use Word in the 1990s was teaching them wordprocessing.

This all changed with the Ribbon and then the "app" mobile-UIs of the late 2000s. Suddenly user interfaces were no longer standardized and people can't transition as easily from Word to, say, LibreOffice Writer, as they could in the 1990s.

And, given the timing, with the work on the Ribbon starting almost immediately after the Microsoft monopoly cases, and the general sense that Windows itself would not be Microsoft's long term money earner, that may be completely intentional...

AI generated stuff is relatively easy for humans to detect but extremely difficult for computers to detect, which is why there's a whole generation of students who have had their grades wiped out by snake-oil "AI detectors" falsely flagging their essays as AI.

What you're asking for will result in a ton of false positives and will do little to slow the stream of AI generated crap.

I'd also add it's probably something Google wouldn't want to do anyway. If someone creates a video with an AI movie generation tool that's scripted by a human (I've seen numerous spoofs, and even things like a team song for a Discord group, done this way), YouTube will probably feel it's legitimate even if the rest of us find it too jarring, awkward, and morally dubious to watch. But such a filter would ban it.

I'm inclined to just let it happen. Let YouTube die. YouTube's good creators have alternatives they can move to. We will lose nothing except a really poor recommendations algorithm which does little but boost misinformation and grifters. Fuck that shit.

> YouTube's only concern these days is revenue and profit.

Which is ironic, because the shittier things become, the more it'll drive people away - not immediately, they may even see usage spikes because of engagement, but sooner or later the bubble bursts.

> This is why I'm moving to self-hosting my own videos on an instance of PeerTube and I encourage other creators to do the same. When you self-host you have *FULL* control and you no longer have to worry about censorship or losing your entire community just because one of YT's AI bots has runamok and identifies your cute cat videos as CSAM.

Complete agreement here. And in general, the solution to the centralization we've seen over the last 20 years and the resultant enshittification is decentralization. There are things we still need such as easier ways to monetize these platforms (so professional creators who do good work can get rewarded - yes, I know, some here think there aren't any, but there are some excellent YouTube channels, especially in the hobby fields, that fly under the radar here - but otherwise the sooner we can move from YouTube the better.

Wow, the description of a mother who persuaded a judge to deny custody to a father (exactly how do you suppose she did that? I assume you're going to accuse her of sleeping with her - in the real world judges HATE giving sole custody to a single parent) as a "Karen" really helps add to the level of misogyny dripping from this post.

It's a shame because you weren't wrong about amber alerts mostly being about custody rather than strangers. But that doesn't make them invalid. A parent protecting their kid against an abusive co-parent and presenting enough evidence to prove that to a judge is generally a good thing, and an attempt by the abusive parent to grab their kid is putting that kid in danger.

Oh they'll do it anyway.

Besides, most amber alerts, when I've seen them followed up on, are more likely custody disputes than "Strange man jumps out of bush and steals kid" type thing. ie a parent is told emphatically by a Judge they're not allowed to go near one of their own children (usually for a good reason), they grab them anyway, and an amber alert is issued.

(Which is why they almost always have a full description of both adult and child, and the car they're in's license plate.)

Not suggesting these are not serious incidents, but when you hear "Child abduction" you usually think serial killer, which is not normally the case.

Client side scripting was created in the mid-1990s: Netscape released JavaScript in December 1995 and Netscape didn't even make the first browser with client side scripting. So... in many ways, saying the Internet was destroyed before it took off is certainly a take.

The real problems with the Internet started with a combination of smartphone apps, and the obsession with centralization, not JS. Facebook (and MySpace before it), Reddit, and a thousand unwanted "Use our app!" dialogs broke free of JS's security sandboxing, the former by being a large enough sandbox that virtually everything could be linked to it, the latter by having access to information you could only ever dream of getting from webpages.

Before that JS was a potential concern, but mostly did more good than damage.

Whether it was intentional or not only factor in whether the lawyer should be brought up on charges.

Both intentionally citing bad cases or doing so out of gross incompetence are both disqualifications for doing that job. At the very minimum I'd expect the lawyer to be unable to practice until she's demonstrated she understands the level of seriousness this fault entailed, and undergoes training to ensure she doesn't do it in future. A one year suspension seems like it should be the minimum.

The clients of lawyers cannot afford their lawyers taking short cuts, let alone stupid ones like this. In some cases it can wipe out an entire client's estate, in others it can result in them being imprisoned or executed unfairly.

And, honestly, I think it's time for a national campaign to educate people on LLMs and their limitations, because the people pushing this shit sure aren't being honest about its limitations, assuming they even realize there are in the first place. Right now pretty much the only entity showing people that LLMs make crap up is Google, who very helpfully are including Gemini on most search results ensuring everyone can see how awful the fucking things are.

This popped up in my Mastodon feed (making it slightly more trustworthy than if it had in an X or Bluesky or Threads post, but still, take it with a pinch of salt):

https://tuta.com/blog/how-to-d...

I haven't had a chance to check whether this works yet because I don't have a phone that's been infected yet, but presumably will do soon.

For some reason, Americans seem to be obsessed with the idea of entire neighborhoods having a uniform appearance. I'm not sure why, but they'll actually get very angry if someone has an RV parked in their driveway and start advocating HOAs in that instance (who typically ban RVs and similar vehicles from the entire neighborhoods.)

I... don't understand the mentality. British immigrant here (possibly returning in the next year or two depending on whether things get worse, ironically more to protect my American born wife and child, the former being visibly latina.) I've had discussions with Americans in all kinds of different contexts and they've all pretty much agreed that somehow HOAs, despite their general distaste of them all, "at least entire the neighborhood looks good by banning RVs and boats from people's driveways" and I'm like WTF who cares what your neighbor has parked in their driveway and they've looked at me aghast anyone could possibly be fine with large vehicles that are not SUVs or pick-up trucks parked there.

Anyway that probably sounds like a side track but it isn't and here's why: that uniform appearance is very, very, hard to pull off unless everyone takes the trouble to do their lawn the same way as their neighbors. HOAs tightly regulate what you can plant in anything visible from the road, and typically at least half your lawn is in front of your house, and many take liberties with what supposedly is out of view too. So gardening becomes something that's impractical, arguably banned, if you are either in a place with an HOA, or you want to be seen as a "good neighbor". Flat boring lawns are cheap to maintain and everyone can do it, while if one house has a garden with flower beds and rock gardens and so on, either all houses would have to do it, or the neighbor would be fucking up the neighbor's "property values" the same way they would if they, uh, had a trailer (caravan) parked on the side of the house.

To me, I don't understand the mentality. Diversity is good. Beauty comes from diversity. And who gives a fuck what vehicles someone else owns as long as they don't park larger vehicles in the street. But that's the mentality.

That does look pretty bad, Tom Arnold in the Tom and Arnie picture just jumped out at me as having the uncanny valley thing going on which shouldn't be a thing with real photos of real people.

All the more stupid because they're 4K AI upscales of 1080p of... 35mm movies. They could have just gone back to the film and rescanned it. I'm guessing laziness is a factor here? They'd rather spend gobs of money on a computer doing this thinking, despite decades of experience telling us otherwise, that computers will just do the job without any problems, than laboriously check a scan frame by frame for film artifacts.

What is it about directors crapping over their own movies like this? First Lucas with the "enhanced" OT, now this? I expected better of James Cameron, he's notoriously perfectionist, but apparently he doesn't actually care if it's any good any more before slinging it out the door in the name of marketing.

My first thought.
Who eats a hot dog every day?
I have one every few weeks.
At age 76 I really don't care if my is shortened by 0.1%

The BBB was supported by the overwhelming majority of conservatives. That's why the Republicans passed it. One or two billionaires bitching about it doesn't change that.

The Republicans don't, and never have, cared about deficit spending. It was Saint Reagan who actually started the modern trend of overspending. Literally the only time they bring it up is when there's a democrat in office and they want to shoot down any spending that might alleviate poverty. Meanwhile, historically, Democrats have done better controlling the debt than Republicans.

So why hasn't Europe been bombed yet? The Euro is doing well and many non-EU countries are switching to it as their preferred reserve currency.

The EU also has plenty of military might. The fact the US has more is neither here nor there given both (and Russia) can destroy the world many times over in the space of a few minutes.